React Development Workflow MCP Server

create_github_release

Generate a tagged release on GitHub with title, notes, and draft status.

Instructions

Create a release on GitHub

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tag": "<tag>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_github_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	Yes	Release tag (e.g., v1.0.0)
`body`	Yes	Release notes
`draft`	No	Create as draft release
`title`	Yes	Release title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Create a release,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a Git tag, publishing vs. draft behavior, permission requirements, or what the response includes). The behavior is opaque beyond the literal action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. There is no extraneous information or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. A single sentence is insufficient to cover prerequisites, return values, or behavioral nuances. It does not even mention that draft releases are possible (which the schema reveals). The description is minimal but inadequate for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a release on GitHub.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_pull_request or commit_and_push by naming a specific GitHub feature. However, it is generic and does not mention release-specific fields (tag, title, body) that the schema provides.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical scenarios (e.g., tagging a new version) or exclusions (e.g., use create_pull_request for code changes). The description is a bare statement with no context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server